1. take a step back
- Posted by Jason Mirwald <jmirwald at ameritech.net> Sep 16, 2004
- 427 views
At the risk of getting flamed again for posting to this list, I thought I'd provide some of my own input... In regard to the 'standardized' set of include files that has been once again mentioned,I did partake in a couple different projects aimed at doing just that. Part of the problem is the lack of acceptance by the community in general. A few people usually seem interested, but then there are incompatabilites, and for that reason nobody want to use them at all. There are bound to be incompatabilities with a new or standardized set of includes, and alot of the files in the archive will probably not be useable with the new set, but in the interest of progress, they should either be updated by the original authors (resubmitted), or if there's no interest in doing that, then consider that they probably wouldn't be supported or enhanced in the future anyway, and are obsolete. Without a standardized set of includes, there's no need to even mention the windows libraries/wrappers. I wrote my own set of wrappers a few years ago, and at that time I abandoned the use of the includes that came with the interpreter. They don't provide all the necessary low-level functionality that is needed for my windows library to function, and in creating a set of includes to support them, I created a set of libraries that was completely incompatible with the standard includes. At one time I was hoping that some of the lower-level includes I had written would be adopted or re-used, possibly even enhanced or developed further. It has become painfully apparent that there are very few people in the community that would even consider such an idea. Most would rather complain about the incompatabilities, and either have me spend my time re-writing the same code over and over, or simply write their own based on what I've already done, from the ground up. That endless circle of coding is what keeps Euphoria where it is. It's not that the code isn't already out there, and it's not that it couldn't be done, it's the fact that regardless of what's written, it's immediatly abandoned or criticised because some file that was submitted to the archive years ago conflicts with it, or that it wasn't done as the 'user' who is interested in using it would have done it, and it's re-written to suit their opinion of what it should be. Jason